Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Watched the video. It's exactly as I said. Hunters stay back and attack from range. In other words, the strongest weapon humans have.

DND martials WALK UP to giant monsters and ATTACK THEM with MELEE WEAPONS which would be suicide.

You also didn't address my claim that any DND monster that could survive modern anti tank weaponry would be invincible to normal humans (which is supported by the damage of rocket launchers in d20 as well as the HP total of many high CR monsters)

To be fair, your original post ignored ranged weapons. Ranged weapons could fall into either or both of options 1 and 2.

We really don't know how primitive man hunted mega-fauna. Iron weapons were non-existent. Long spears with fire-hardened tips were probably useful.

Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Watched the video. It's exactly as I said. Hunters stay back and attack from range. In other words, the strongest weapon humans have.

DND martials WALK UP to giant monsters and ATTACK THEM with MELEE WEAPONS which would be suicide.

You also didn't address my claim that any DND monster that could survive modern anti tank weaponry would be invincible to normal humans (which is supported by the damage of rocket launchers in d20 as well as the HP total of many high CR monsters)

To be fair, your original post ignored ranged weapons. Ranged weapons could fall into either or both of options 1 and 2.

We really don't know how primitive man hunted mega-fauna. Iron weapons were non-existent. Long spears with fire-hardened tips were probably useful.

Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

that's fair.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2023, 12:13:29 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Premise 1: There are fantasy monsters that are too strong for any group of realistic human hunters to kill (due to their insane durability and special features compared to real life animals) unless the group numbers in the hundreds or thousands
Premise 2: Anyone in a 6 man group (adventurers) who can kill those fantasy monsters with physical non enhanced force has to be superhuman
Premise 3: Buildings in this world are not somewhat more durable than real world buildings unless noted otherwise
Conclusion: Adventurers can smash through your house like it's made out of wet tissue paper because they can apply the physical force needed to do so.

If you tone down the monsters to where they can be killed by some sort of fantasy peak human, then yeah, but DND dragons are at a point where it's hard to believe Batman can do anything to them. Giants too because the tissue strength required to remain a humanoid shape at those heights is absurd.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

or just walk on them considering they're hundreds of feet long.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

I don't see the logic in those tactics. Against a dumb and/or slow beast, using ranged weapons means one is relatively safe. With a dragon, it is smart and fast and can get in and still do its attacks, and the fighter is responding with lower-damage ranged weapons. i.e. It'll still fly up to the fighter, knock him prone and/or fling him -- but he won't get in a good hit as it does so.

Besides, D&D is pretty clearly designed with that style of fighting dragons:

Greetings!

Well, I can certainly appreciate the rules-savy, the "Rules Lawyering", and the whole Meta-Tactics awareness of Player Characters, but especially with the ruthless DM wearing the Viking Hat, and seeking to run monsters effectively.

However, I like to think that historical mythology, the heroic tradition, and a dragon's immeasurable *pride* trump all of those previously mentioned considerations. In Medieval Spanish myth, dragons would use their cunning, their words, magic, and spells to gain the upper hand in a fight, besides breathing fire or poisonous fumes, and ripping into enemies with it's teeth and claws. Likewise, in European mythology, dragons traditionally rely on their teeth and claws to shred some upstart, would-be hero that is foolish enough to challenge them. Similar attributes are found also in Eastern European mythology, Slavic mythology, and Norse mythology. Furthermore, such traditional attitudes and fearsome tactics are also prevalent in Arthurian mythology.

Dragons are immensely proud, and righteously arrogant. They *relish* ripping their enemies apart by biting them and shredding them with their sword-like claws. Besides scourging them with blasts of searing fire. Upstart heroes daring to challenge their ancient might *need* to be chomped on and slaughtered in physical combat. The mighty dragons love the taste of fresh meat and bones being crushed in their jaws, and their enemy's blood spurting in a gory, terrifying spectacle. In addition, dragons deeply enjoy the scent and tasting the raw fear and terror of their enemies as their terrible doom falls upon them like a furious storm.

Mighty dragons are not going to scroll through some textbook of tactics to use all of these weird spells, or fly and caper about, being careful to stay out of range, and prancing about.

Mighty dragons are blasting searing fire and charging forth to slaughter their enemies with teeth and claws.

I say all that to aim at the "meta tactics manual" as doing so really tramples immersion and makes a dragon encounter feel more like a video-game boss fight than an epic encounter in a fantasy world.

Myself, well, yes, I prefer a more mythological and heroic approach when running dragon encounters. To me, it simply feels more immersive and faithful to the epic, heroic mythology.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 06, 2023, 02:16:24 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2023, 12:13:29 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Premise 1: There are fantasy monsters that are too strong for any group of realistic human hunters to kill (due to their insane durability and special features compared to real life animals) unless the group numbers in the hundreds or thousands
Premise 2: Anyone in a 6 man group (adventurers) who can kill those fantasy monsters with physical non enhanced force has to be superhuman
Premise 3: Buildings in this world are not somewhat more durable than real world buildings unless noted otherwise
Conclusion: Adventurers can smash through your house like it's made out of wet tissue paper because they can apply the physical force needed to do so.

If you tone down the monsters to where they can be killed by some sort of fantasy peak human, then yeah, but DND dragons are at a point where it's hard to believe Batman can do anything to them. Giants too because the tissue strength required to remain a humanoid shape at those heights is absurd.

All this boils down to D&D combat being abstracted and therefore unrealistic. I don't think anyone can coherently argue against that.

The mistake I think you make is that somehow pointing this out with elaborate examples and analogies is going to be some argument against criticism of SJW inspired fantasy world building being unrealistic. If so, then it's all a bunch of silly nonsense and we should all grow up and stop pretending to be elves.
But we will continue to pretend to be elves, and argue about realism versus abstracted rules, and SJW fantasy worlds will continue to be dreary, preachy messes.

Quote from: SHARK on October 06, 2023, 03:51:37 AM
Mighty dragons are not going to scroll through some textbook of tactics to use all of these weird spells, or fly and caper about, being careful to stay out of range, and prancing about.

Mighty dragons are blasting searing fire and charging forth to slaughter their enemies with teeth and claws.

I say all that to aim at the "meta tactics manual" as doing so really tramples immersion and makes a dragon encounter feel more like a video-game boss fight than an epic encounter in a fantasy world.

Myself, well, yes, I prefer a more mythological and heroic approach when running dragon encounters. To me, it simply feels more immersive and faithful to the epic, heroic mythology.

It's not meta for an intelligent dragon to use fundamental tactics, any more than it would be meta for a German panzer division to use tactics.

This is partly a clash in source material. Medieval epic poetry describes battles in florid, emotional terms. Partly because of this, I think there's a tendency to think that medieval people weren't tactically-minded, and tactics are a modern invention. In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success. Only a few people (like Sun Tzu) would write about tactics in surviving works, but many would think about it.

If the PCs have a good chance of killing the dragon, and the dragon ignores this and charges in foolishly to be cut down, then it comes across as stupid rather than intelligent. A dragon can still be fearsome and terrifying when using tactics. The important thing is when in game, don't talk about it analytically like one does in a forum post, but rather concentrate on the vividly describing the sensory results and feel of the battle.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

These are not "mistakes." These are examples of people and being people. The reason Fabius is famous is because he bucked the trend. His own people deemed him a coward. Eventually he earned respect for his defensive tactics. But he was an outlier. Most if not all other Roman leaders would have stormed in and got slaughtered by Hannibal again. We can view that strategy in retrospect as a mistake. But for them, it was a matter of honor.

For a dragon, a barbarian, or an honor-bound knight, charging in headlong and getting struck down by a worthy foe might be a perfectly reasonable outcome. Mistake? Nah, man, broaden your perspective a little.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 04:01:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

These are not "mistakes." These are examples of people and being people. The reason Fabius is famous is because he bucked the trend. His own people deemed him a coward. Eventually he earned respect for his defensive tactics. But he was an outlier. Most if not all other Roman leaders would have stormed in and got slaughtered by Hannibal again. We can view that strategy in retrospect as a mistake. But for them, it was a matter of honor.

For a dragon, a barbarian, or an honor-bound knight, charging in headlong and getting struck down by a worthy foe might be a perfectly reasonable outcome. Mistake? Nah, man, broaden your perspective a little.

Meaning that just as the player should RP his PC in ways consistent with it's alignment, class, race, etc the GM should RP the monsters in a way consistent to how he built them.

Jhkim Dragons might be different from vanilla D&D Dragons in "personality", and that's okay as long as they remain consistent with his game world.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

Greetings!

Slaughtering cattle does not require tactics.

By the way, I have not suggested that "Intelligent Opponents acting tactically" is a Meta Video-Game thing. I have suggested that a traditional, heroic, super-powerful and majestically arrogant creature like a DRAGON, would be more likely to simply breathe fire and chomp their opponents in a terrifying slaughter and rage. Flying away, staying at a distance, using crazy spells--as a tactical suite--is more akin to a boss-fight encounter in a video game, and not an epic encounter with a dragon from myth. Embracing fancy tactics, weird spells, staying out of range--all that gets precisely to the other-worldly and mythic psychology of the Dragon.

Embracing such a tactical suite suggests FEAR. FEAR OF BEING DEFEATED AND KILLED BY FUCKING HUMANS.

I am suggesting that--yes, looking to the different sources in literature and myth, as opposed to the game-book mentality of the game--an epic Dragon wouldn't have FEAR OF HUMANS. Human opponents would be like cattle, or maybe seen as a potentially poisonous spider that can sting hard when it bites you--but the outcome is still certain in the Dragon's mind.

The spider, the cattle--the human warriors--are all going to die horribly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK